Dawn L. Rothe

Towards a victimology of state crime

State crimes have been studied by criminologists for nearly three decades. While far from stagnant, research and theory in this area of criminology have not developed at the pace one may have expected a decade ago. In an attempt to rejuvenate the study of state crime, we first identify and review the various types of victims and victimizers of state crime identified in the criminological literature. By employing a previously created typology of state crime, we discuss how individuals and groups of individuals can be identified as state crime victims in both domestic and international contexts. We then highlight the common themes involved in the victimizations, and offer six inductively generated propositions intended to facilitate future developments in the victimology of state crime.

Gold, diamonds and blood: International state‐corporate crime in the Democratic Republic of the Congo 1

Since the beginning of the First Congolese War in 1996, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has devolved into uncontrolled genocidal warfare between ethnically based factions within an unresolved civil war due to international involvement on behalf of its neighbours (e.g., Uganda and Rwanda), transnational corporations (e.g., AngloGold Ashanti) and those corporations’ Western trading partners (Metalor Technologies and the nation of Switzerland). Central to the conflict is the control of rich mineral fields of the nation. Neighbouring nations and transnational corporations have exploited the political and military chaos of the DRC to expropriate illegally the state’s natural resources, especially the rich mineral deposits of the north and northeast. This case study examines the nature of these international crimes, theoretically explores the multiple causal factors and draws upon criminological theory to discuss solutions to the problems.

Toward a Criminology of International Criminal Law: An Integrated Theory of International Criminal Violations

Violations of international criminal law (i.e., genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes) are a common occurrence around the globe. One need only to read international news, visit intra‐governmental (e.g., United Nations or the International Committee Red Cross), or nongovernmental organizations (e.g., Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International) to be exposed to the vast numbers of crimes of states, paramilitaries, and/or militias. Nonetheless, there has been relatively little attention paid to these types of offenses by criminologists. While there have been developments in creating typologies (Smeulers, 2008) and predictive models for genocide (Harf, 2005), due to the complexities and various forms of these types of crimes, there has been little to no development of a criminological theoretical model that can aid in the analysis of such crimes. Our goal is to firmly place international crimes on the criminological agenda by creating additional awareness of and interest in the most massive, systematic, and gruesome types of crime‐genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression‐and to introduce an integrated theory that can provide a frame for a systematic analysis and understanding of the etiologi‐ cal factors at play.

The Ability of the International Criminal Court to Deter Violations of International Criminal Law: A Theoretical Assessment

Many actors within the field of international criminal justice, including those who work for the Court itself, have heralded the deterrent power of the court and its ability to remove impunity for violations of international criminal law. Practitioners and scholars routinely assume a probability at best, to an assumption of sureness, of a powerful deterrent effect. Given the ongoing crimes against humanity that have occurred in the Twenty-First Century, such claims can only be seen as hopeful proclamations. This article examines the potential inhibitory effects that the Court may have on violations of international criminal law, especially international humanitarian law, grounded in criminological insights and explanatory power. To do so, we lay out the current state of thinking in deterrence theory and critically explore how it can, or fails to, generate the effects which so many international public actors, including the court itself, claim.

The Marginalization of State Crime in Introductory Textbooks on Criminology

This article reviews how introductory textbooks on criminology, geared toward the American market, have disproportionately ignored the subject matter of state crime. The authors present both qualitative and quantitative empirical evidence of coverage given to crimes of the state from leading introductory textbooks, and then pose several questions for future research that could provide answers as to why this is the case. Ross and Rothe then contacted the authors of these books to request feedback on their decision-making processes used for content inclusion and/or exclusion; specifically why their texts offered only limited coverage on state crime. The authors conclude that market dynamics, coupled with professional intransigence, has contributed to this state of affairs.

Got a band-aid? Political discourse, militarized responses, and the Somalia pirate

Piracy is far from a new phenomenon (with records of piracy dating back to the 1600s), yet over the course of the past decade, it has become a focus of the international political community. Drawing from Foucault and Gramsci, we suggest that the ‘problem’ of piracy today, in particular off the coast of Somalia, is framed in a discourse to reify and support a broader ‘regime of truth’ embedded in global state-corporate economic interests. We further suggest that equating the Somalia piracy to terrorism and as a global threat to peace and maritime security serves as the political discourse designed to legitimate militarized policy responses rather than addressing the underlying conditions in Somalia that are facilitating the instances of piracy. While piracy was once a state-organized crime committed for the purposes of capital accumulation, the current framing and overly militarized responses are based on protecting states’ capital interests rather than addressing the root of the problem at hand, inadvertently providing a venue under which the conditions and ongoing deterioration of the Somalia state not only continue but remain marginalized and unaddressed.

Darfur and the Politicization of International Law: Genocide or Crimes against Humanity?:

The humanitarian crisis in Darfur has slowly captivated international public, governmental, and media attention. With at least two million persons displaced and an estimated 400,000 killed,1 it is one of the many grave crises of failed states currently occurring within Africa. The people of the region have faced murder, displacement, rape, and banditry at the hands of the Sudanese government, the state-supported Janjaweed, and other militia groups, most notably the Sudan Liberation Army. Yet the United Nations concluded after a fact-finding mission to the region that these widespread atrocities did not constitute genocide but rather were defined as crimes against humanity. This article provides a brief overview of the background and contemporary state of the situation as well as a legal examination of the nature of genocide in international law and the United Nation Security Councils rationale for applying the label of crimes against humanity. The chief purpose of the article is to clearly differentiate the two concepts of genocide and crimes against humanity and to thoroughly examine the practical difference a definition makes.

Private Military Contractors, Crime, and the Terrain of Unaccountability

Criminological research has traditionally attempted to explain the etiological factors of crime and then suggest appropriate controls. More often than not, the foci of this kind of work have remained on “street crime.” Since the 1990s, however, some scholars have turned their attention to the causal factors of corporate crime, state crime, crimes of globalization, supranational crimes, and their various permutations and interconnections. Clearly missing from this literature is the growing phenomenon of private military contractors (PMCs) and the crimogenic culture of and atmosphere within which they operate. Specifically, while the use of PMCs is rapidly growing, the increasing propensity for PMCs crimogenic culture and the unregulated nature of what has become a global industry is rarely studied by social scientists. Further, few criminologists have examined this area of research by applying criminological theory to explain the growth and emergence of PMCs. Our goal is to help fill this gap. Through the process of theory building and refinement we identify factors that facilitate the criminogenic environment within which PMCs operate. Additionally, without attempting to expand explanatory and causal mechanisms, policies aimed at reducing PMC criminality and social justice for their victims cannot be developed. As such, we draw from theoretical developments in state and state‐corporate crime, social disorganization, and anomie literature to shed light on key factors associated with PMCs, namely, the crimogenic atmosphere within which they operate.

Crimes of Globalization

Preface 1. Crimes of Globalization and the Criminological Enterprise 2. What are Crimes of Globalization? 3. Some Current Cases of Crimes of Globalization 4. Towards an Integrated Theory of Crimes of Globalization 5. Crimes of Globalization and the Global Justice Movement.

The case of Bradley Manning: state victimization, realpolitik and WikiLeaks

While the case of WikiLeaks release of classified documents and its founder, Julian Assange, has garnered much popular attention, the formal social control reactions to the alleged involvement of Private First Class Bradley Manning has remained, relatively glaringly absent from the media, public and political discussions. Moreover, while scant criminological attention has been given to the extradition of Assange on sexual charges and the situation of WikiLeaks, there has been no analysis of the control mechanisms that were placed on Manning in an effort to cease the release of US documents and his activity as a whistle-blower. This examination fills this void by adding to the literature on states’ responses to whistle-blowers by highlighting states’ mechanisms including retaliation and redirection to obscure its criminality as well the theoretical framework of realpolitik. While realpolitik has been used previously to explain motivations for state crime, it has not been applied as an explanation for the implementation of controls. Not only is the preservation of state legitimacy and practices of realpolitik central to the reactions of the government to this case of whistle-blowing, but that the responses denied a presumption of innocence and have violated basic human rights tenants, the Uniform Code of Justice, the US Constitution, thus making this a case of state victimization.